Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Asking For Some Group Collaboration

Expand Messages
  • RickyG
    To all, I would like to ask the group for some opinions, research, experiences with similar cases, or just some good old fashioned investigative
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 9, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      To all,

      I would like to ask the group for some opinions, research, experiences with similar cases, or just some good old fashioned "investigative contemplation" in regards to a case that I am working.

      First, let me lay the foundation for this case. Here in Boone County, MO. I have a client that the Sheriff's Dept. and our Local Narcotics Task Force have been trying to convict on drug charges for quite a while now. After several raids on his home/office, several years of surveillance on this subject, and literally hundreds of interviews with my client's associates, they have come up "empty". But, they get an "A" for effort and tenacity. Approximately one year ago our Local Narcotics Task Force raided my client's home/office again; and came up "empty" again. But.... They did find and come up with a picture that was generated from a video camera set up in my client's Office that records images to his computer. This image displayed a female with a syringe in her arm. And based on this picture, some interviews, and surveillance that shows various people coming and going at my client's home/office that have since been convicted of various drug offenses, our Local Narcotics Task Force have now charged my client with Maintaining a Nuisance; which is the charge that they use when they can't prove up possession and/or distribution charges.

      Here is a detail that I should mention. My client was a Bail Bondsman at the time that the surveillance photos were taken of the people that were convicted of drug charges were photographed coming and going at this home/office. In other words, these were his clients. We can actually demonstrate this with court records.

      Of course, as you can imagine there are a few people that my client has revoked bonds on that has made some statements against him that are probably not true. I think Sue Sarkis MAY be able to attest to all of the rumors and accusations that are made against Bail Bondsmen; not saying anyone has ever said anything against her, what I AM saying is that I am sure she has heard the rumors that go around.

      My one singular problem at this point in time is just that picture. The picture LOOKS damning and could help the Prosecution make their case. So, I am looking for a ways to assist the attorney in getting it excluded.

      Now, here is the angle that I want to first try to pursue. My client's computer was NOT seized in this last raid. The origins of this picture are on the computer that was not seized. I believe that makes the picture digital evidence. My thoughts are that we may have an issue under the best evidence rule. We may be able to show that this image cannot be relied upon since it is digital evidence that has not been authenticated. I believe you get the idea as to what I first want to research.

      I welcome all opinions and posts on-topic to this post. Any ideas? Any opinions? Anyone that has already confronted this issue in court? Any case law that might be pertinent and/or relevant? I am open to all.

      Thank you in advance to those that choose to participate in assisting me with this case.

      Have a good day.



      Rick.




      --
      Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
      Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
      Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
      Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
      Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
      Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
      Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
      Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
      Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
      EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

      RMRI, Inc. Websites
      (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
      (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

      RMRI, Inc. Blogs
      (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
      (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/
    • suesarkis@aol.com
      Rick - Some questions. Is the camera on 24/7? Is there anyone else in the picture except the female with the syringe in her arm? Has the female been
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 9, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Rick -

        Some questions.

        Is the camera on 24/7? Is there anyone else in the picture except the
        female with the syringe in her arm? Has the female been identified? Was this
        in the residential portion of his home or the office portion? Is the
        office opened 24/7 or is it by appointment only? Does he have any employees?

        If he was there, might she have done this while he went to the bathroom.
        What happened to her after she shot up? Did he throw her out if he was
        there?



        Sue


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • RickyG
        ... Thanks for replying, Sue. I knew I could count on you to try to help me out here. I will list your questions and the answers to them one by one below: (1)
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 9, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, suesarkis@... wrote:
          >
          > Rick -
          >
          > Some questions.
          >
          > Is the camera on 24/7? Is there anyone else in the picture except the
          > female with the syringe in her arm? Has the female been identified? Was this
          > in the residential portion of his home or the office portion? Is the
          > office opened 24/7 or is it by appointment only? Does he have any employees?
          >
          > If he was there, might she have done this while he went to the bathroom.
          > What happened to her after she shot up? Did he throw her out if he was
          > there?
          >
          > Sue


          Thanks for replying, Sue. I knew I could count on you to try to help me out here. I will list your questions and the answers to them one by one below:

          (1) Is the camera on 24/7? Yes. This is a video camera that was recording 24/7 and storing the video to the hard drive of the computer. Understand that the picture is just a still frame that was taken from the video.

          (2) Is there anyone else in the picture except the female with the syringe in her arm? No. She is the only one in the picture. AND, the prosecution does have her endorsed as a witness in this case.

          (3) Was this in the residential portion of his home or the office portion? This was in the office portion of the structure.

          (4) Is the office opened 24/7 or is it by appointment only? At the time the video was taken, the office was opened 24/7; as a matter of fact in the summer time (which is when the video was taken), the front door is left open to welcome anyone that might want to stop in. Now, understand that my client is not a Bail Bondsman right now. This charge bought about a revocation of his privilege to write bail bonds in Boone County by an En Banc Panel meeting of our Judges here in Boone County. Now this structure is being used solely as a residence by my client.

          (5) Does he have any employees? At the time this video was taken he did not have employees.

          (6) If he was there, might she have done this while he went to the bathroom. What happened to her after she shot up? He was not there at the time of this incident. The subject that had the needle in her arm when this video was taken is the girlfriend of my client's son. It was not uncommon at all for her and my client's son to be there when my client was not there.

          (7) Did he throw her out if he was there? He banned her and his son from coming onto his property when he discovered what had transpired while he was not there and that video was taken. He was quite irate, even now he and his son do not speak to each other.


          If you have any other questions, please feel free. I'll answer them as best I can. Thanks again, Sue.


          Rick.


          Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
          Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
          Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
          Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
          Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
          Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
          Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
          Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
          EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

          RMRI, Inc. Websites
          (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
          (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

          RMRI, Inc. Blogs
          (1) http://rmriinc. blogspot.com/index.html
          (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/
        • John Huheey
          Rick Law enforcement rarely,if ever, seizes computers during a search warrant. They normally seize a digital image of the hard drives and seize removable
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Rick

            Law enforcement rarely,if ever, seizes computers during a search warrant. They normally seize a digital image of the hard drives and seize removable storage (cd's, DVD's, diskettes, etc) for subsequent imaging and analysis. Each image that they create is normally created using software that creates an exact cloned image of the drive or storage media and a hash file for the original drive and the cloned drive to proove that the cloned image is identical to the original. Forensic software is also used to create hash files for each document or picture that is copied from the original image during analyis so that the examiner can proove to the court that the document or picture he is showing the court is undoctored and is an exact copy of the document or picture that was found on the seized image. In other words, if the forensic team did their job properly, your client will not be able to claim that the image of the woman shooting up was not on the computer at the time of the seizure.

            John Huheey
            Secure Systems Group Ltd./Veritas Investigations
            958 Independence Drive
            Dayton, OH 45429-5640
            (937) 673-4546
            Ohio License 2003008162

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • RickyG
            ... Thank you for your reply John. I understand how digital forensics work, my company actually specializes in this area of investigation. I can tell you that
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, "John Huheey" <JHuheey@...> wrote:
              >
              > Rick
              >
              > Law enforcement rarely,if ever, seizes computers during a search warrant. They normally seize a digital image of the hard drives and seize removable storage (cd's, DVD's, diskettes, etc) for subsequent imaging and analysis. Each image that they create is normally created using software that creates an exact cloned image of the drive or storage media and a hash file for the original drive and the cloned drive to proove that the cloned image is identical to the original. Forensic software is also used to create hash files for each document or picture that is copied from the original image during analyis so that the examiner can proove to the court that the document or picture he is showing the court is undoctored and is an exact copy of the document or picture that was found on the seized image. In other words, if the forensic team did their job properly, your client will not be able to claim that the image of the woman shooting up was not on the computer at the time of the seizure.



              Thank you for your reply John. I understand how digital forensics work, my company actually specializes in this area of investigation. I can tell you that here in Boone County, MO. it is S.O.P. to seize the computer if digital evidence is going to be used in court. I know of no cases where our Internet Crimes Taskforce has imaged on site. The forensic team that would do the digital imaging here would be the Mid-Missouri Internet Crimes Taskforce: http://mmictaskforce.com/ and I know who all of the people on that team are, and I know the man in charge of that team personally. They are completely competent and totally professional. I also know that they were not involved in this raid on my client's office/residence.

              But... You are in the "heart of the matter" in regards to my post, John. Being that none of what you mention in your post was done in this last raid on my client's office/residence. That there was no checksum taken to authenticate the picture, that the picture is in fact digital evidence and no forensic procedures were followed in taking the picture in as evidence; I am sure that there has to be some good arguments to get the picture excluded. What I am looking for are some cases that some people here may have already been involved ion where this issue was confronted in court, perhaps some relevant case law that can be used here, best evidence rule issues, or anything like that. The Defense Attorney in this case is an EXCELLENT Attorney, he just left the Public Defender's Office last year, and was hired by one of the top attorney firms here in Columbia, MO.; but digital evidence is something that everyone here is still learning about. Hopefully your response here will help to keep us focused on the request I am making to the group.


              Rick.



              Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
              Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
              Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
              Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
              Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
              Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
              Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
              Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
              Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
              EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

              RMRI, Inc. Websites
              (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
              (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

              RMRI, Inc. Blogs
              (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
              (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/
            • oracleintl@aol.com
              Hi Rick, I don t think your efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the picture to get it suppressed are the best argument. Why not argue that it is being
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Rick,

                I don't think your efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the picture to
                get it suppressed are the best argument. Why not argue that it is being
                offered solely for its outrageously prejudicial value. Since there is nothing
                to connect the image, and the activity depicted, to your client, it has no
                probative value other than the shocking impact that it might have on a
                jury.

                Your client is a bail bondsman, he deals with criminals for a living, and
                criminals can be expected to be in the area that he left open to them -
                although I would suspect that many people would find that to be a bit
                incredible.

                If we are to believe that he left an area of his home wide open to
                miscreants, mopes, thieves and derelicts, without his presence or other
                supervision, that begs a question, "If a hooker chose that same opportunity of open
                room availability to give some guy a BJ, would that make him a pimp?"

                Bill E. Branscum, Investigator
                Oracle International
                Naples, FL 34101
                (239) 304-1639 V
                (239) 304-1640 F
                (239) 641-6782 C
                _www.FraudsAndScams.com_ (http://www.FraudsAndScams.com)







                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • RickyG
                ... Thank you, Bill. That is one angle that the attorney did mention and will motion the court on. It is a good point, I do believe that the picture is highly
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, oracleintl@... wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Rick,
                  >
                  > I don't think your efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the picture to
                  > get it suppressed are the best argument. Why not argue that it is being
                  > offered solely for its outrageously prejudicial value. Since there is nothing
                  > to connect the image, and the activity depicted, to your client, it has no
                  > probative value other than the shocking impact that it might have on a
                  > jury.
                  >
                  > Your client is a bail bondsman, he deals with criminals for a living, and
                  > criminals can be expected to be in the area that he left open to them -
                  > although I would suspect that many people would find that to be a bit
                  > incredible.
                  >
                  > If we are to believe that he left an area of his home wide open to
                  > miscreants, mopes, thieves and derelicts, without his presence or other
                  > supervision, that begs a question, "If a hooker chose that same opportunity of open
                  > room availability to give some guy a BJ, would that make him a pimp?"



                  Thank you, Bill. That is one angle that the attorney did mention and will motion the court on. It is a good point, I do believe that the picture is highly prejudicial and really serves no purpose in demonstrating that my client is guilty of Maintaining a Nuisance other than to prejudice the Jury. I want to see if we could "strengthen" our stance in regards to getting the picture excluded by looking at this "digital evidence angle". But, you are right, and this is the first logical argument.

                  The Office/Residence is a double wide trailer out in the middle of the country. At the time that this incident occurred someone was always there to "man the shop"; so to speak. Unfortunately that day the person "manning the shop" was my client's son and his drug addicted girlfriend. This incident is how my client found out that his son's girlfriend is a drug addict. Since this incident my client's son and him have not spoken, he banned them both from his property, and basically disowned "Jr.". "Jr." has also picked up his own habit since then (maybe he already had a habit, but this incident is what allowed my client to find out). My client's son and his girlfriend are endorsed as witnesses for the Prosecution, and they want to send my client to prison. As you can imagine, this whole thing is convoluted and complex. But, I am finding that there is no such a thing as a "simple criminal case"... LOL.

                  I believe the statute itself is vague enough to make prosecution fairly easy..

                  Here is the statute that my client was charged under:
                  **********************************************************************
                  Missouri Revised Statutes
                  Chapter 195
                  Drug Regulations
                  Section 195.130

                  August 28, 2009

                  Places used for illegal sale and use--nuisances, suits to enjoin, procedure--public nuisance, criminal penalty, property subject to forfeiture.

                  195.130. 1. Any room, building, structure or inhabitable structure as defined in section 569.010, RSMo, which is used for the illegal use, keeping or selling of controlled substances is a "public nuisance". No person shall keep or maintain such a public nuisance.

                  2. The attorney general, circuit attorney or prosecuting attorney may, in addition to any criminal prosecutions, prosecute a suit in equity to enjoin the public nuisance. If the court finds that the owner of the room, building, structure or inhabitable structure knew that the premises were being used for the illegal use, keeping or selling of controlled substances, the court may order that the premises shall not be occupied or used for such period as the court may determine, not to exceed one year.

                  3. All persons, including owners, lessees, officers, agents, inmates or employees, aiding or facilitating such a nuisance may be made defendants in any suit to enjoin the nuisance.

                  4. It is unlawful for a person to keep or maintain such a public nuisance. In addition to any other criminal prosecutions, the prosecuting attorney or circuit attorney may by information or indictment charge the owner or the occupant, or both the owner and the occupant of the room, building, structure, or inhabitable structure with the crime of keeping or maintaining a public nuisance. Keeping or maintaining a public nuisance is a class C felony.

                  5. Upon the conviction of the owner pursuant to subsection 4 of this section, the room, building, structure, or inhabitable structure is subject to the provisions of sections 513.600 to 513.645, RSMo.

                  (RSMo 1939 § 9844, A.L. 1971 H.B. 69, A.L. 1985 H.B. 488, A.L. 1989 H.B. 479)
                  Revisor's note: S.B. 215 & 58, enacted by the 1st Regular Session of the 85th G.A. 1989, repealed section 195.130 effective 6-19-89. H.B. 479 repealed and reenacted section 195.130 the same session, effective 8-28-89.
                  **********************************************************************

                  Here is where the Missouri Revised Statutes that pertain to narcotics charges are located: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c195.htm if you are interested.

                  You raise a good point in regards to the "hooker", Bill. I believe that the statute here only applies to narcotics usage, and not prostitution. But I am not sure because this statute is hardly ever used to prosecute with here in Boone County.

                  This will give you an idea of how vague the Prosecution is being. The Prosecution claims that somewhere between the years of 2004 and 2009 my client used narcotics in this structure 4 times. No specific dates, no specific months and years, just "somewhere between 2004 and 2009". When the attorney motioned the court demanding a bill of particulars, this issue was heard and the Judge in this case (who is the former County Prosecutor here) told the Prosecutor that he was going to have to be more specific than just stating between "2004 and 2009" because this was "overly broad".

                  The picture APPEARS to be "damning". The reason the Defense Attorney and I want to get it excluded is exactly the reason you mention here it is simply prejudicial without any real substance, and this Prosecutor seems only happy to use it..

                  Thank you for your input, Bill.


                  Rick.


                  Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                  Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                  Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
                  Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                  Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                  Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                  Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                  Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                  Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                  EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                  RMRI, Inc. Websites
                  (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
                  (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

                  RMRI, Inc. Blogs
                  (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
                  (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/
                • TSCM/Special Ops Group Inc.
                  Heres my 2 cents; Did the image have a time date stamp burned into it and or was it watermarked?if so wheres the rest was the image taken from a standalone dvr
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Heres my 2 cents;
                    Did the image have a time date stamp burned into it and or was it
                    watermarked?if so wheres the rest
                    was the image taken from a standalone dvr or from a smaller sd card equipped
                    device? if so wheres the rest
                    is there just one image or is there a complete series of stills or fluid
                    video leading up to the incident and after?
                    one picture of an idiot shooting up means nothing,unless the responsible
                    party is seen in the background.
                    is it possible the idiot is diabetic?
                    prosecution should have all imaging in a series leading up to the incident
                    or item.
                    case reference Calif v. OJ Simpson ( photos of the shoes) missing photos
                    from negatives made the evidence inadmissable.

                    Also think about areas of liability and responsibility.Was the subject in
                    the photo under the care custody and control of the bondsmen?

                    If a patient walks into a treatment center and shoots up while they believe
                    no one is looking,but gets caught on a surveillance camera with no
                    counteraction after the fact is the treatment center liable? or should the
                    treatment center be prosecuted?? and if the answer is yes for what? having a
                    still or video of a client or patient shooting up after the fact?? If your
                    client is prosecuted they may as well go after every property owner that has
                    ever had someone doing something illegal on their property with or without
                    their consent......

                    Theres a CD atty i did some work for who became notorious for battling
                    prosecutors and other entities by stating "show me the f**king law that says
                    you can or cannot do xyz".he always won.

                    Being a bondsmen requires dealings with people from all walks of life,if
                    someone shoots up while the responsible owner or bondsmen is out of range of
                    the activity and cant prevent it,or take action to deter it they shouldnt be
                    held accountable.

                    Remember, our legal system likes to prosecute anything that will generate
                    income for the system often leaving the innocent with a legal bill.........

                    Be carrful




                    Mitch Davis
                    TSCM/Special Operations Group Inc.
                    20 Music Square West,Suite 208
                    Nashville,TN. 37203
                    Mail to:MitchD@...
                    Website www.tscmusa.com
                    (615) 251 0441
                    fax (615) 523 0300
                    "Maintaining a higher degree of excellence"
                    *******************************************
                    Tools for investigators at: covertworx.com

                    CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING!!! This electronic message contains information
                    which may be privileged and/or confidential. This information is intended
                    for the exclusive use of the individual(s), entity, or persons named or
                    indicated above. Any unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, distribution,
                    or use of any parts of the contents of this message/information is strictly
                    prohibited.




                    _____

                    From: RickyG [mailto:rmriinc@...]
                    Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 9:11 PM
                    To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [infoguys-list] Asking For Some Group Collaboration




                    To all,

                    I would like to ask the group for some opinions, research, experiences with
                    similar cases, or just some good old fashioned "investigative contemplation"
                    in regards to a case that I am working.

                    First, let me lay the foundation for this case. Here in Boone County, MO. I
                    have a client that the Sheriff's Dept. and our Local Narcotics Task Force
                    have been trying to convict on drug charges for quite a while now. After
                    several raids on his home/office, several years of surveillance on this
                    subject, and literally hundreds of interviews with my client's associates,
                    they have come up "empty". But, they get an "A" for effort and tenacity.
                    Approximately one year ago our Local Narcotics Task Force raided my client's
                    home/office again; and came up "empty" again. But.... They did find and come
                    up with a picture that was generated from a video camera set up in my
                    client's Office that records images to his computer. This image displayed a
                    female with a syringe in her arm. And based on this picture, some
                    interviews, and surveillance that shows various people coming and going at
                    my client's home/office that have since been convicted of various drug
                    offenses, our Local Narcotics Task Force have now charged my client with
                    Maintaining a Nuisance; which is the charge that they use when they can't
                    prove up possession and/or distribution charges.

                    Here is a detail that I should mention. My client was a Bail Bondsman at the
                    time that the surveillance photos were taken of the people that were
                    convicted of drug charges were photographed coming and going at this
                    home/office. In other words, these were his clients. We can actually
                    demonstrate this with court records.

                    Of course, as you can imagine there are a few people that my client has
                    revoked bonds on that has made some statements against him that are probably
                    not true. I think Sue Sarkis MAY be able to attest to all of the rumors and
                    accusations that are made against Bail Bondsmen; not saying anyone has ever
                    said anything against her, what I AM saying is that I am sure she has heard
                    the rumors that go around.

                    My one singular problem at this point in time is just that picture. The
                    picture LOOKS damning and could help the Prosecution make their case. So, I
                    am looking for a ways to assist the attorney in getting it excluded.

                    Now, here is the angle that I want to first try to pursue. My client's
                    computer was NOT seized in this last raid. The origins of this picture are
                    on the computer that was not seized. I believe that makes the picture
                    digital evidence. My thoughts are that we may have an issue under the best
                    evidence rule. We may be able to show that this image cannot be relied upon
                    since it is digital evidence that has not been authenticated. I believe you
                    get the idea as to what I first want to research.

                    I welcome all opinions and posts on-topic to this post. Any ideas? Any
                    opinions? Anyone that has already confronted this issue in court? Any case
                    law that might be pertinent and/or relevant? I am open to all.

                    Thank you in advance to those that choose to participate in assisting me
                    with this case.

                    Have a good day.

                    Rick.

                    --
                    Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                    Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                    Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
                    Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                    Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                    Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                    Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                    Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                    Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                    EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                    RMRI, Inc. Websites
                    (1) http://www.rmriinc. <http://www.rmriinc.com> com
                    (2) http://rmriinc. <http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com>
                    bestcyberinvestigator.com

                    RMRI, Inc. Blogs
                    (1) http://rmriinc. <http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html>
                    blogspot.com/index.html
                    (2) http://rmriincspace <http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/>
                    .spaces.live.com/







                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • suesarkis@aol.com
                    Rick - Based on the language below coupled with the facts as you have stated, he neither knew nor maintained. Quite the contrary - once he was made aware he
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Rick -

                      Based on the language below coupled with the facts as you have stated, he
                      neither knew nor maintained. Quite the contrary - once he was made aware
                      he immediately brought about a cease and desist of his own doing.

                      I think his defense is strong based on the language of the section.

                      Have they filed on his son and the girlfriend? If not, sure sounds
                      slightly discriminatory to me.


                      Sue


                      In a message dated 1/10/2010 9:37:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                      rmriinc@... writes:

                      knew that the premises were being used for the illegal use, keeping or
                      selling of controlled substances, the court may order that the premises shall
                      not be occupied or used for such period as the court may determine, not to
                      exceed one year.

                      3. All persons, including owners, lessees, officers, agents, inmates or
                      employees, aiding or facilitating such a nuisance may be made defendants in
                      any suit to enjoin the nuisance.

                      4. It is unlawful for a person to keep or maintain such a public nuisance.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • oracleintl@aol.com
                      To the extent that constant contact with the dregs of society is a nuisance, your client had a license for that. The fact that a third party allowed his
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        To the extent that constant contact with the dregs of society is a
                        "nuisance," your client had a license for that. The fact that a third party
                        allowed his premises to be used as a shooting gallery doesn't impute the intent
                        necessary to attribute that to him.

                        The fact that he basically disowned them demonstrates his position.

                        I think you prevail here, but I don't know whether he will get that
                        license back. In many places, issuance of a bondsman license is discretionary to
                        the point of being ridiculous.

                        Bill


                        In a message dated 1/10/2010 12:37:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                        rmriinc@... writes:




                        --- In _infoguys-list@infoguys-lisinf_
                        (mailto:infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com) , oracleintl@., ora
                        >
                        > Hi Rick,
                        >
                        > I don't think your efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the picture to
                        > get it suppressed are the best argument. Why not argue that it is being
                        > offered solely for its outrageously prejudicial value. Since there is
                        nothing
                        > to connect the image, and the activity depicted, to your client, it has
                        no
                        > probative value other than the shocking impact that it might have on a
                        > jury.
                        >
                        > Your client is a bail bondsman, he deals with criminals for a living,
                        and
                        > criminals can be expected to be in the area that he left open to them -
                        > although I would suspect that many people would find that to be a bit
                        > incredible.
                        >
                        > If we are to believe that he left an area of his home wide open to
                        > miscreants, mopes, thieves and derelicts, without his presence or other
                        > supervision, that begs a question, "If a hooker chose that same
                        opportunity of open
                        > room availability to give some guy a BJ, would that make him a pimp?"

                        Thank you, Bill. That is one angle that the attorney did mention and will
                        motion the court on. It is a good point, I do believe that the picture is
                        highly prejudicial and really serves no purpose in demonstrating that my
                        client is guilty of Maintaining a Nuisance other than to prejudice the Jury. I
                        want to see if we could "strengthen" our stance in regards to getting the
                        picture excluded by looking at this "digital evidence angle". But, you are
                        right, and this is the first logical argument.

                        The Office/Residence is a double wide trailer out in the middle of the
                        country. At the time that this incident occurred someone was always there to
                        "man the shop"; so to speak. Unfortunately that day the person "manning the
                        shop" was my client's son and his drug addicted girlfriend. This incident
                        is how my client found out that his son's girlfriend is a drug addict. Since
                        this incident my client's son and him have not spoken, he banned them both
                        from his property, and basically disowned "Jr.". "Jr." has also picked up
                        his own habit since then (maybe he already had a habit, but this incident
                        is what allowed my client to find out). My client's son and his girlfriend
                        are endorsed as witnesses for the Prosecution, and they want to send my
                        client to prison. As you can imagine, this whole thing is convoluted and
                        complex. But, I am finding that there is no such a thing as a "simple criminal
                        case"... LOL.

                        I believe the statute itself is vague enough to make prosecution fairly
                        easy..

                        Here is the statute that my client was charged under:
                        **********************************************************************
                        Missouri Revised Statutes
                        Chapter 195
                        Drug Regulations
                        Section 195.130

                        August 28, 2009

                        Places used for illegal sale and use--nuisances, suits to enjoin,
                        procedure--public nuisance, criminal penalty, property subject to forfeiture.

                        195.130. 1. Any room, building, structure or inhabitable structure as
                        defined in section 569.010, RSMo, which is used for the illegal use, keeping or
                        selling of controlled substances is a "public nuisance". No person shall
                        keep or maintain such a public nuisance.

                        2. The attorney general, circuit attorney or prosecuting attorney may, in
                        addition to any criminal prosecutions, prosecute a suit in equity to enjoin
                        the public nuisance. If the court finds that the owner of the room,
                        building, structure or inhabitable structure knew that the premises were being
                        used for the illegal use, keeping or selling of controlled substances, the
                        court may order that the premises shall not be occupied or used for such
                        period as the court may determine, not to exceed one year.

                        3. All persons, including owners, lessees, officers, agents, inmates or
                        employees, aiding or facilitating such a nuisance may be made defendants in
                        any suit to enjoin the nuisance.

                        4. It is unlawful for a person to keep or maintain such a public nuisance.
                        In addition to any other criminal prosecutions, the prosecuting attorney
                        or circuit attorney may by information or indictment charge the owner or the
                        occupant, or both the owner and the occupant of the room, building,
                        structure, or inhabitable structure with the crime of keeping or maintaining a
                        public nuisance. Keeping or maintaining a public nuisance is a class C
                        felony.

                        5. Upon the conviction of the owner pursuant to subsection 4 of this
                        section, the room, building, structure, or inhabitable structure is subject to
                        the provisions of sections 513.600 to 513.645, RSMo.

                        (RSMo 1939 § 9844, A.L. 1971 H.B. 69, A.L. 1985 H.B. 488, A.L. 1989 H.B.
                        479)
                        Revisor's note: S.B. 215 & 58, enacted by the 1st Regular Session of the
                        85th G.A. 1989, repealed section 195.130 effective 6-19-89. H.B. 479
                        repealed and reenacted section 195.130 the same session, effective 8-28-89.
                        **********************************************************************

                        Here is where the Missouri Revised Statutes that pertain to narcotics
                        charges are located: _http://www.moga.http://www.moga.http://w_
                        (http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c195.htm) if you are interested.

                        You raise a good point in regards to the "hooker", Bill. I believe that
                        the statute here only applies to narcotics usage, and not prostitution. But I
                        am not sure because this statute is hardly ever used to prosecute with
                        here in Boone County.

                        This will give you an idea of how vague the Prosecution is being. The
                        Prosecution claims that somewhere between the years of 2004 and 2009 my client
                        used narcotics in this structure 4 times. No specific dates, no specific
                        months and years, just "somewhere between 2004 and 2009". When the attorney
                        motioned the court demanding a bill of particulars, this issue was heard and
                        the Judge in this case (who is the former County Prosecutor here) told the
                        Prosecutor that he was going to have to be more specific than just stating
                        between "2004 and 2009" because this was "overly broad".

                        The picture APPEARS to be "damning". The reason the Defense Attorney and I
                        want to get it excluded is exactly the reason you mention here it is
                        simply prejudicial without any real substance, and this Prosecutor seems only
                        happy to use it..

                        Thank you for your input, Bill.

                        Rick.

                        Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                        Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                        Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
                        Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                        Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                        Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                        Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                        Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                        Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                        EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                        RMRI, Inc. Websites
                        (1) _http://www.rmriinc.htt_ (http://www.rmriinc.com/)
                        (2) _http://rmriinc.http://rmriinc.http://rm_
                        (http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com/)

                        RMRI, Inc. Blogs
                        (1) _http://rmriinc.http://rmhttp://rmrhttp_
                        (http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html)
                        (2) _http://rmriincspacehttp://rmriinhttp_
                        (http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/)







                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • RickyG
                        ... It is hard to say whether or not he will get his bail bonds license back. Right now, our concern is his freedom, and after we see if we can help keep him
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 10, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, oracleintl@... wrote:

                          > I think you prevail here, but I don't know whether he will get that
                          > license back. In many places, issuance of a bondsman license is discretionary to
                          > the point of being ridiculous.


                          It is hard to say whether or not he will get his bail bonds license back. Right now, our concern is his freedom, and after we see if we can help keep him free of incarceration we will worry about the bail bonds license.

                          He may not even want his bail bonding license back after this. I know he has mentioned moving out of the county after his cases are over with, given that he has the opportunity to do so.

                          An interesting side-note. Here in Missouri, we have a recent appellate court ruling that has clarified an age old dilemma for us. The Missouri Department of Insurance regulates the Bail Bonding business. And we have statutes that indicate that the Missouri Department of Insurance has sole discretion on Bail Bonds Licensing. We even have one statute that indicates that if the Bail Bondsman has a valid license it is good to write bonds with anywhere in the state. But the recent appellate ruling indicates that the Circuit Judges have the discretion to decide who may or may not write bail in their counties regardless of whether they are duly licensed by the state or not.


                          Rick



                          Risk Management Research & Investments, Inc. & Thoth Data Systems
                          Mailing Address: 2101 W. Broadway PMB 326, Columbia, MO. 65203
                          Office Address: 1 E. Broadway Suite Z, Columbia, MO. 65203
                          Direct Office Number: (573) 234-6876
                          Office Phone: (573) 234-4647 Ext. 110
                          Car Phone: (573) 529-0808
                          Cell Phone: (573) 529-4476
                          Toll Free Phone: (888) 571-0958
                          Toll Free Fax: (877) 795-9800
                          EMERGENCY LINE: (573) 234-4871

                          RMRI, Inc. Websites
                          (1) http://www.rmriinc.com
                          (2) http://rmriinc.bestcyberinvestigator.com

                          RMRI, Inc. Blogs
                          (1) http://rmriinc.blogspot.com/index.html
                          (2) http://rmriincspace.spaces.live.com/
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.